OpenDART MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('정보를 제공합니다' - provides information) but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what format the information comes in. The description mentions the source ('주요사항보고서' - major reports) which adds some context, but overall behavioral transparency is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with a clear two-part structure: purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place - the first establishes what the tool does, and the parameter section provides essential usage information. The formatting with clear 'Args:' labeling helps readability, though the mixing of Korean and English could be slightly confusing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description provides adequate but minimal coverage. It explains what the tool does and documents parameters, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but the description still has clear gaps in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by documenting all 3 parameters with their Korean names, formats, and constraints (corp_code: 8-digit unique number, bgn_de/end_de: YYYYMMDD format, 2015 onwards). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain what happens if dates are invalid or what the date range represents (reporting date vs decision date).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '타법인 주식 및 출자증권 양수결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 타법인 주식 및 출자증권 양수결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides information on acquisition decisions of other corporations' stocks and equity securities from major reports). It specifies both the action ('provides information') and the resource ('acquisition decisions of other corporations' stocks and equity securities'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_other_corp_stock_transfer_decision' or 'get_stock_bond_acquisition_decision'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_other_corp_stock_transfer_decision' (which appears to handle transfer decisions rather than acquisition decisions). The only contextual information is the date range constraint (2015 onwards), which is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.